Greg Haidl: Stop Making Me Publicly Register As a Sex Offender!

For Gregory Scott Haidl, being the centerpiece of what became known as Orange County's internationally infamous Haidl Gang Rape case means never genuinely saying you're sorry and always searching for an angle to weaken rendered punishment.

Haidl, who made a child-porn video of himself and two buddies sexually assaulting an unconscious, 16-year-old girl on a Corona del Mar sofa and pool table in 2002, received (along with co-defendants Kyle Nachreiner and Keith Spann) six-year prison terms and, because of the warped nature of their acts, lifetime requirements to register publicly as sex offenders.

Though the 28-year-old Haidl has served his prison stint, he believes he was unconstitutionally wronged by Superior Court Judge Francisco Briseño's 2006, sex-offender registration condition that mandates public access to his photo, his crimes, physical descriptions--including tattoos (skull and crossbones on his abdomen)--and alleged city of residence (San Clemente), but not his street address.

This judicial nugget annoys the privacy-seeking convicted felon who has repeatedly sought to overturn his conviction or, at least, the registration requirement. In 2010, the California Court of Appeal in Santa Ana rejected his argument. The following year, the California Supreme Court did the same. Most recently, he has taken his cause to U.S. District Court.

According to Haidl's federal lawsuit, the conviction should be overturned because his chief defense lawyer, Joseph G. Cavallo, gave incompetent legal aid, made boneheaded court moves designed to increase legal fees, and placed a greater emphasis on winning publicity for himself than defeating prosecutors. It also claims Briseño erred by blocking important defense evidence designed to portray the victim as sexually promiscuous and by improperly mandating the registration requirement without necessary jury permission.

The most controversial claim--Cavallo's alleged incompetence--mostly deals with Haidl's assertion that he could have cut his prison exposure in half and avoided the registration mandate if he'd accepted a trial-eve plea bargain crafted by Al Stokke, another defense lawyer, with prosecutors. Stokke and Haidl's father, then-Assistant Orange County Sheriff Don Haidl, passionately insisted he accept the deal.

But the younger Haidl says Cavallo convinced him to ignore the proposal by guaranteeing he'd win an acquittal of the charges that included the defendants repeatedly shoving an apple-juice can, Snapple bottle, lit cigarette and pool cue into the victim's vagina and rectum.

We Recommend

This registry was developed poorly and without any foresight. It neither deters nor keeps society safer the way it is designed. Anybody told they have to register for life has a substantially different outlook; versus a registry designed that encourages working your way off it in a certain number of years. In the meantime, I would think it impossible to get a job being on the registry, and that translates into registrants having much more free time. I would rather have them employed and working towards getting of it. However, in addition, it does erode our rights as citizens who do not have a criminal record. I still see an intelligent argument for not having it all. People should not be required to tell anyone where they live or get permission once anyone leaves jail or prison unless they are on probation. This mentality steps uncomfortably close to surrendering a basic fundamental principle of freedom in American. This case in particular had more to do with alcohol than sex. The originating problem was ignored when it should have been treated, then you solve the problem, not the symptom. If a crime is triggered by alcohol abuse and the punishment is containment (jail), you haven't solved the problem, only forestalled it.

We can argue about the fairness and constitutionality of the sex offender registry until we're all blue in the face...but Greg Haidl is the type of sexual predator who deserves to be registered. Period. He is exactly the type of person for whom the registry was created.

Poor Greg Haidl, he didn't mean to repeatedly shoving an apple-juice
can, Snapple bottle, lit cigarette and pool cue into the victim's vagina
and rectum. Things just got out of hand after she fell unconscious from drinking. It wasn't his fault. The temptation to rape her was just too high, or maybe she was just asking for it. Utter crap! He and his two other friends are little pigs who should register for life as a reminder of just how twisted they are. Imagine for a moment that you are a parent of a 16 year old and Greg and his buddies have given YOUR daughter their special treatment. Drunk drivers who kill should register as well.

Also worth mentioning; some ex-offenders were charged with misdemeanors; and some would not even be crimes in other states as far as the age of consent. There is no reason these people should have a lifetime of this privacy invasion and loss of rights. Drunk drivers can kill people, there's no registry for them, it's ridiculous.

I do not think anyone should be forced to do anything after they have served their sentence, including sex offenders. Not only does the registry indirectly increase the dangers; Because the ex-offender unable to find work or place to live, which endangers society having an kind of ex-offender out of work or in an unstable living situation. Another huge hole is it also literally gives other offenders the ability to land in any city and look up another offender for whatever purpose. Recent studies have shown a number of disturbing things; offenders forced into a sex offender counseling treatment have double the chance of re-offending, and double again if they face jail time. One in every 413 Americans is now a registered offender. This law is seriously flawed and needs to go. Also, many of these "crimes" happened while under the influence of alcohol, so treatment for the correct problem should be provided and not simply eliminate the possibility of anyone proving themselves worthy of the opportunity of having a normal life ever again, not to mention the suicides and other violence perhaps as a direct result of this punishment of all sticks and no carrots. Nothing in this law encourages not repeating the same behavior, it's almost the final hammer possibly inviting an attitude of having nothing to lose now.

People that have done considerably less than Haidl are still made to register. If the state of California ever institutes a tiered system, where some offenders are made to register for extended periods of time while others (whose offenses are considered more serious) are made to register indefinitely, my guess is Haidl will remain in the latter category.

What is the REAL purpose of the registry? Is it to humiliate? To banish? To protect?

Humiliation is wonderful. It is the main objective and outcome of the registry.

I left the registry. I left it because the only outcome to it is a loss of safety and/or security. The major componant of the registry of unlimited public notification leads to all sorts of loss of housing, jobs, and even membership in the community. It also leads to threats, and isolation

There is no public protection to the registry because, generally, unlimited public notification leads to alienation and estrangement and clearly a higher rate of re-offense.

The only rational thing to do is to leave the registry when faced with the illegal choices of a loss of safety and/or security or following the law.

You all think it is legitimate to create a system of public humiliation, call it public safety and have the only outcome the loss of safety and/or secuirty and a more dangeorus community.

It's not legitimate. It is illegal.

I will never go back on that registry. You all lose. You lose because you are not allowed to determine a person dangerous and regulate a person for the rest of their lives without review, hearing, challenge, or appeal.

Have some DUE PROCESS and THEN regulate with conditions that actually serve public safety. Until you do that though, your registry will be ignored.

@wggjs There sentence included registering as a sex offenders. So, technically they haven't finished serving their sentence. Though I do agree that registering shouldn't even be a question, they should all be given life in prison.

@Rudy101 You left the registry? I hope the police are reading this. Sexual assault, rape and many other sexual crimes should yield nothing but harsh and permanent punishment for those who perpetrate those crimes.

How dare you complain about the loss of safety and or security. Sexual offenders took the safety and security from their victims. The victims of sex crimes live with it for life and never recover. Rapists never seem to understand that.

The registry is legal. It has been challenged and upheld by the courts.

@whateveryousay@wggjs A registration is not a blank slate to regulate a person. The registry is used in unlimited and ever expanding ways to isolate a person based upon an illegal presumption that a person is a continuing danger. The presumption is illegal because it is conferred by statute and continues outside of a sentence, without consideration to a change of cirumstances OR if a person actually presents a danger to the community.

@Rudy101@rrl1965 I wasn't arguing for or against registration, really. I was simply saying Haidl will be one of the last to get off of it due to the nature of his offense. But I am curious about your idea that someone is being provoked to the endangerment of children. Please elaborate.

@whateveryousay The survey you cite does not really support your argument as it is comprised of "men whose self-reported sexual acts met legal definitions of rape or attempted rape but whose actions went undetected by the criminal justice system..." (Special emphasis on that last part).

@rrl1965@Rudy101 I made it pretty clear on how to find it. It is so simple. Sex offender registry studies. It is 4 words.

Then read what you find.

I am not interested in changing anyone's mind. The registry is already political enough. That's where all the arrogance around the registry resides. "WE" (the legislature) says it is true, and therefore it is true.

I can't win any argument on studies, EXCEPT I can show that being on the registry it is REASONABLE for me to fear the loss of my safety and/or security.

This is a legal issue in the fact that I have not lost my RIGHT to be an individual before the law. You all, through representation, want to control that right.

I say, you can't. AND I am saying it is so important, this issue of being an individual before the law, that it is invalidating your registry as it is now for the lack of it.

@Rudy101@rrl1965 I agree with much of what you are saying now. However, you avoided my question, which was fairly straight forward. If you want to make statements about due process, I get it. But you made a specific claim about the content of studies and yet have refused to provide one example of such a study. If you were in school and made such a claim, the teacher or professor would require you to cite your source, and would mark you down if you simply said there are many such sources out there. The reason a teacher does that is because in the world of adults, in order to make and gain acceptance for your argument, you must make the case, something that involves establishing the validity and credibility of your claims. Why is that so hard? Or is it that you were asserting something you heard and do not really know for yourself if such studies say such things?

@Rudy101 I agree with much of what you are saying now. However, you avoided my question, which was fairly straight forward. If you want to make statements about due process, I get it. But you made a specific claim about the content of studies and yet have refused to provide one example of such a study. If you were in school and made such a claim, the teacher or professor would require you to cite your source, and would mark you down if you simply said there are many such sources out there. The reason a teacher does that is because in the world of adults, in order to make and gain acceptance for your argument, you must make the case, something that involves establishing the validity and credibility of your claims. Why is that so hard? Or is it that you were asserting something you heard and do not really know for yourself if such studies say such things?

@rrl1965@Rudy101 This is not an argument about studies, but about due process. SOME people need to be restricted. Some do not. The whole of my argument is, no legislature has the authority, by itself to determine a person dangerous for life, making that known to the community, and allowing no way to challenge that determination.

In other words, a conviction is not enough to regulate to such a degree membership in the community becomes meaningless, and even criminal.

There is no exemptions for Due Process. You can't restrict groups of people and their liberty through studies.

I get my day in court, or I don't register. It is that simple. As of now, I have not had my day in court. Until that happens, regardless of what any laws says, I don't have to register.

You would think society would want to be a little more careful about compiling such a list, AND allowing EVERYONE the opportunity off of it IF it can shown they are not dangerous to the community.

Who can show such things? Let's start the hearings and find out. Too lazy? Well, too bad about the registry.

@Rudy101 You act like you've never been asked to back up your statements before. How about you provide some specific information to support your claim? You could cite the study and the page number, and maybe even provide a direct quote from it that shows that the report says what you say it says.

@Rudy101 "The relationship between more public notificaiton and more kids being sexually abused has aready been made.You wouldn't know about those studies (and there are lots of them) because nobody cares. " Help me find these studies, if you would.

The relationship between more public notificaiton and more kids being sexually abused has aready been made. You wouldn't know about those studies (and there are lots of them) because nobody cares. The registry is about humiliation with a whole bunch of denial about how it makes the community more dangerous.